KURIAKOSE Vs. SANTHOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. His claim for compensation for loss suffered as a result of a motor accident was turned down by the Tribunal on the ground that Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act bars the claim of the appellant. The accident and injury are not seen disputed. The Tribunal took the view that Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act as explained in ', ' bars the claim of the appellant/claimant. Admittedly the appellant is receiving disablement benefit under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has totally misconstructed the provisions of law in coming to the conclusion that a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is barred by the stipulations of Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act. The counsel submits that the position has been considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Regl. Director E.S.I.C. v. Francis De Costa, 1993 Supp4 SCC 100 . We extract the relevant para 44 below:

(3.) We are persuaded to agree that the decision in Regl. Director E.S.I.C. v. Francis De Costa, 1993 Supp4 SCC 100 covers the specific issue raised in this case. Claim is raised against a stranger to the contract of employment for compensation on the basis of negligence for causing the accident. The claim is not for compensation for employment injury and in these circumstances the observations in para 44 of Regl. Director E.S.I.C. v. Francis De Costa, 1993 Supp4 SCC 100 must be preferred. Following the dictum therein we accept that a claim for compensation in tort against a stranger can coexists with a claim for benefits under the E.S.I. Act. The use of the words "any person" in Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act which we extract below cannot take within its sweep the claim in tort against the stranger/tort fearer under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for compensation for the loss suffered in a motor accident caused by negligence.